Since counsel for Dan Parisi (Parisi v Sinclair 1:10-CV-00897-RJL United States District Court for District of Columbia & 11-7077 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) filed what they claimed was “Newly Discovered video of Larry Sinclair’s February 22, 2008 polygraph with the Court, we have had independent experts reviewing that video. In addition we have gone over statements made by Edward I. Gelb in his reports on Larry’s polygraph and compared them to claims made by Parisi and Gelb himself. The first point we keep running into of course is the same one that Larry pointed out in February of 2008 where Gelb claimed
The polygrams were “blind scored” by another expert examiner who independently corroborated the findings of the primary examiner. Edward I Gelb February 22, 2008
First, to conduct a “blind score,” the individual conducting said score must be blind as to the following salient details:
Not only was Dr. Barland not “blind” in his review of Gelb’s findings (Barland himself admitted as much in his written report), Parisi’s recent claims in Federal Court filings that Gelbs findings were “blind scored” by another expert in Gelbs office are clearly untrue.
Further review by Dr. George W. Maschke of Anti-polygraph.org found even more questionable details in Gelb’s findings in 2008
That Gelb, a past-president of the American Polygraph Association, could consider Barland’s review to have been “blind” helps illustrate just how far removed polygraph practice is from the scientific method.
Barland’s report makes it clear why Gelb failed to mention the results of any computerized scoring of his polygraph charts. Although Barland, in his non-blinded review agreed with Gelb’s hand scoring of the charts, in the one case (regarding the drug allegation) where Barland ran a computerized scoring algorithm on the chart, contrary to Gelb and Barland’s hand-scored finding that Sinclair had failed, the computer determined that he had passed (and with flying colors at that)! Barland writes (at para. 6):
“I scored the printout of the second series of charts (regarding cocaine), but was not satisfied with the quality of the electrodermal channel on one of the charts. When I received the digital data and optimized the channel, I used the Federal 7 position scale and the 2007 DACA reaction criteria to evaluate the charts. I scored the charts as -7 (Deception Indicated). I also evaluated the second series using the computer algorithm PolyScore (v. 6.0). It evaluated the charts as No Deception Indicated, and calculated the probability of deception as being less than .01 on a scale from .00 to 1.00. This was inconsistent with my numerical analysis. This is a relatively uncommon occurrence. The DACA guidelines indicate that when there is conflict between the examiner’s or reviewer’s score and Polyscore, the human score takes precedence. The computer algorithms are considered to be useful supplements, but they are not definitive, I therefore concur with Mr. Gelb’s conclusions that Mr. Sinclair showed indications of deception on both test issues.
So the PolyScore algorithm (that Ed Gelb so hailed in his polygraph report for Wendy Ellis) found Sinclair truthful with a less than 1% probability of deception! But in this case, Gelb and Barland (who cannot have been unaware of the firestorm of controversy that would have resulted had they found Sinclair non-deceptive with regard to this question) somehow reached a completely opposite conclusion!
Gelb did not provide Barland with the computerized data for the examination on Sinclair’s sex allegations, and thus he was not able to run PolyScore on them.
Regular readers of AntiPolygraph.org may recall that last year, Ed Gelb performed a polygraph test on Wendy Ellis, a former prostitute who claimed that U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) had been a customer. That polygraph examination was also paid for by a pornographer: Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler magazine.
Comparing the polygraph report that Gelb prepared on Ellis with those he prepared on Sinclair, one notes a glaring difference: for the Ellis polygraph report, he scored the charts both manually and with a computerized scoring algorithm:
Quote:The resultant polygrams were traditionally (manually) scored and then scored by computer using an algorithm developed by the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University. This algorithm has been validated by the National Security Agency and is presently being utilized by the Department of Defense. The results of this scoring are included in this report. The scoring indicates that the examination was “NDI” (no deception indicated) with a probability of deception of less than .01 when Ellis answered the relevant questions as indicated above.
The results of the computerized examination indicate that Wendy Ellis was telling the truth when she answered the relevant questions.
During the post test interview, Ellis was advised of the results of the examination.
But Gelb only mentions the results of his hand-scoring of the charts in his two reports for Sinclair (concerning his sex and drug allegations, respectively). Why did Gelb fail to include computerized scoring results for Sinclair’s polygraph examinations? Gelb’s omission raises the question of whether there was a discrepancy between his hand scoring and the decision rendered by the computer.
In addition, note that while Ellis was advised of the test results at the conclusion, it appears that Gelb failed to advise Sinclair that he had failed during the post-test interview.
In reviewing the recently filed video submitted by Parisi it clearly shows Edward Gelb being told by Parisi associate and Whitehouse.com Director of Business Development Robert Braddock Jr. (who according to his google profile claimed to be a “professional” Democratic Fundraiser in Charlotte, NC where Braddock resided at the time of Larry’s Polygraph) that they had planned from the beginning to lie to Larry about the results of the polygraph. See the video here
Interestingly enough at no time in 2008 did Robert Braddock nor Dan Parisi ever mention Mr. Braddock was involved in Democratic Fundraising nor that Braddock was (according to his online resume) Director of Business Development for Whitehouse.com but instead claimed he was “my assistant editor.” Further evidence that Braddock has been dishonest as to his position is a July 2011 affidavit provided to Parisi counsel Richard Oparil which states “I worked for Whitehouse.com from January to June 2008 as videographer/Reporter.” Gelb has been tauted by Parisi as having performed more than “30,000 polygraphs,” yet according to others this is a claim by Gelb himself which has not been supported by anything other than Gelb’s claiming it to be the case.
In a recent review of the video filed by Parisi with the Court (which the Court has since stricken) Anti-Polygraph.org is in the process of preparing a report (for full disclosure purposes it is noted that George W. Maschke supported Barack Obama in 2008 and did contribute to the Obama Campaign). Once that report has been typed up and forwarded to us we will update this article with.
Gordon Barland noted in his report that Gelb had connected “GSR electrodes to the same arm as the blood pressure cup,” which Larry noted in his interview with BigHeadDC. Barland notes this is not normal procedure and when asked about it Gelb claimed he was taught to do it that way. Because of this Larry recently contacted three medial Doctors to ask them if a person’s pulse through the finger tip electrodes could be manipulated if a blood pressure cuff was on the same arm and inflated to the point of cutting circulation. All three licensed medical doctors rendered the same answer, “Yes!” These same doctors verified that blood pressure can also be manipulated by over inflation of the cuff where it is left that way for a couple of minutes before deflating for a BP read. All of these things had occurred during Gelb’s examination. Other individuals who were examined by Edward Gelb have claimed Gelb DID NOT attach the GSR electrodes and blood pressure cuff on the same arm when conducting their examination.
Something we only realized today is, according to Parisi counsel Richard Oparil, the video filed with the Court is supposedly one continuous video unedited.” Larry however noticed that the video contained individual video files of distinct time frames which had been combined. When Larry sent Parisi counsel an email informing him of such Oparil simply replied “I think you are mistaken.” In Oparils August 16, 2011 letter Mr. Oparil told Larry that he knew Gelb had video taped the examination because Dr. Gordon Barland had stated he reviewed Gelb’s video. According to the report of Dr. Gordon Barland
“I did not receive the DVD of the second test series, so my review of that is limited to the chart analysis. I cannot comment on the discussion at the outset, of or during the second series.”
In addition according to Barland’s report
“I was unable to score the charts using a computer algorithm, as I do not have the digital data for the first series.”
The computer algorithm data is what showed Larry passed the polygraph as to the drug claim, an did so with flying colors. This same computer algorithm that Edward Gelb hailed in the Wendy Ellis polygraph just 7 months earlier.
In an interview with Geraldo Rivera Gelb made the following statement when asked if he really believed his statement “…you only seem to hear about the ones that pass, not the ones that fail.”
“…And if I was an attorney, which I’m not, I wouldn’t want to be gone after for malpractice for having clients take polygraph tests willy-nilly without knowing how they were going to do.” Edward Gelb
Currently Larry is looking into the possibility of taking another polygraph exam before the 2012 election and campaign season. There is more to come in Part II. You will not want to miss that.